Bistricic v Rokov

The case of *Bistricic v Rokov* concerned a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser arising from a contract for the sale of land. The vendor, Mr. Bistricic, sought to terminate the contract due to the purchaser's alleged failure to comply with a time of the essence clause. The purchaser, Mr. Rokov, contended that the vendor had waived the time of the essence clause and that the contract remained on foot. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the vendor was entitled to terminate the contract for the purchaser's late settlement, notwithstanding the vendor's own conduct which the purchaser argued amounted to a waiver of the time of the essence stipulation. Specifically, the court had to consider the circumstances under which a party to a contract for the sale of land can insist on strict compliance with a time of the essence clause after having previously indicated a willingness to accept late performance.

The High Court held that the vendor was not entitled to terminate the contract. The court reasoned that where a party to a contract indicates by their conduct that they will not insist on strict performance of a time of the essence clause, they cannot subsequently rely on that clause to terminate the contract without first giving the other party reasonable notice that they now intend to enforce the clause strictly. This principle, often referred to as the doctrine of waiver or equitable estoppel, prevents a party from acting inconsistently with their previous representations or conduct to the detriment of the other party. In this instance, the vendor's actions in continuing negotiations and not immediately asserting their right to terminate after the initial missed deadline were found to constitute a waiver of the time of the essence clause.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the vendor's appeal, upholding the decision of the lower court that the contract remained valid and enforceable.